Nuclear convoy filmed on way through Oxfordshire

Bicester Advertiser: Nigel Day, of Oxford CND, and former city councillor Nuala Young Nigel Day, of Oxford CND, and former city councillor Nuala Young

There were delays on the roads on Thursday when a convoy of 20 military vehicles travelled through the county.

Setting off from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Burghfield near Reading at 9am, the convoy included four warhead carriers which transport Trident nuclear bombs.

It arrived at the Coulport nuclear store in Scotland at 2.30am yesterday.

The journey through Oxfordshire was filmed by members of the Oxford Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

Spokesman Nigel Day said: “The Ministry of Defence sent this massive convoy of weapons of mass destruction on our roads and through our cities.”

  • Watch the video below


 

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS, SPORT and JAYDEN depending on what services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.

Our top stories

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:21am Sat 12 Jul 14

skcollob says...

Er....so what.
Er....so what. skcollob
  • Score: 20

9:35am Sat 12 Jul 14

Geoff Roberts says...

Yeah! We love nuclear weapons. Phwoar, look at that size of that warhead! It's gorgeous! When's the X Factor on again?
Yeah! We love nuclear weapons. Phwoar, look at that size of that warhead! It's gorgeous! When's the X Factor on again? Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 3

9:40am Sat 12 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Word of warning Nigel and Nuala - membership of the Campaign for Unilateral Disarmament may no longer qualify you for a Hero of the Soviet Union (Useful Idiot Division) award
Word of warning Nigel and Nuala - membership of the Campaign for Unilateral Disarmament may no longer qualify you for a Hero of the Soviet Union (Useful Idiot Division) award Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 16

10:38am Sat 12 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.? Oxonian
  • Score: -15

10:45am Sat 12 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation.

There is more danger from a petrol tanker.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation. There is more danger from a petrol tanker. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 33

12:39pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation.

There is more danger from a petrol tanker.
If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless.

But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation. There is more danger from a petrol tanker.[/p][/quote]If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless. But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing. Oxonian
  • Score: -10

12:49pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

Don't worry, when Scotland goes independent later this year - the Natsys* have promised that it will be a Nuclear free country. All of these devices will be returned to protect rUK.


* Natsys is a popular term for Unionists to use when referring to Nationalists.
Don't worry, when Scotland goes independent later this year - the Natsys* have promised that it will be a Nuclear free country. All of these devices will be returned to protect rUK. * Natsys is a popular term for Unionists to use when referring to Nationalists. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
Well I don't think it's money wasted. If I'm wrong, the most we've lost is some research. If you're wrong we lose everything. Equally if you don't think CND was well regarded in the Kremlin then no doubt nothing could be said to you to demonstrate otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]Well I don't think it's money wasted. If I'm wrong, the most we've lost is some research. If you're wrong we lose everything. Equally if you don't think CND was well regarded in the Kremlin then no doubt nothing could be said to you to demonstrate otherwise. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 2

2:51pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

I watched the beginning of a highly boring video and saw no military vehicles - two white trucks, police vans and a fire engine and then I gave up. Why is the dull-sounding person giving the registration numbers? Even Google Streetview don't do that.
I watched the beginning of a highly boring video and saw no military vehicles - two white trucks, police vans and a fire engine and then I gave up. Why is the dull-sounding person giving the registration numbers? Even Google Streetview don't do that. Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: 23

3:45pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Councillor Mark David Cherry says...

My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.
My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first. Councillor Mark David Cherry
  • Score: 13

4:15pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Councillor Mark David Cherry wrote:
My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
[quote][p][bold]Councillor Mark David Cherry[/bold] wrote: My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 12

4:17pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation.

There is more danger from a petrol tanker.
If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless.

But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation. There is more danger from a petrol tanker.[/p][/quote]If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless. But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 3

4:25pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation.

There is more danger from a petrol tanker.
If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless.

But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
Sorry, computer jinx there.

I was trying to say that an accident to a nuclear convoy would be less disastrous than a petrol tanker.

My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target.
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation. There is more danger from a petrol tanker.[/p][/quote]If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless. But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.[/p][/quote]Sorry, computer jinx there. I was trying to say that an accident to a nuclear convoy would be less disastrous than a petrol tanker. My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 12

4:28pm Sat 12 Jul 14

onemorething says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation.

There is more danger from a petrol tanker.
If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless.

But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
VERY reassuring...
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]You are obviously unaware of the intricacies of nuclear devices and their transportation. There is more danger from a petrol tanker.[/p][/quote]If a petrol tanker is involved in a road accident, it can lead to very unpleasant consequences. If a nuclear device is involved, it would not be harmless. But my main complaint about nuclear devices is their immense cost - taken out of our taxes, when the money could be used for positive, life-saving things rather than devices for killing.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.[/p][/quote]VERY reassuring... onemorething
  • Score: 6

4:48pm Sat 12 Jul 14

CtrlAltTab says...

skcollob wrote:
Er....so what.
Wow someone else with the exact same thought as me!
[quote][p][bold]skcollob[/bold] wrote: Er....so what.[/p][/quote]Wow someone else with the exact same thought as me! CtrlAltTab
  • Score: 9

6:15pm Sat 12 Jul 14

kiddyboy says...

Middle lane Hog!!!
Middle lane Hog!!! kiddyboy
  • Score: 7

6:35pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target."

The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy.

Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.
Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target." The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy. Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency. Oxonian
  • Score: -3

7:51pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Marco00 says...

Does this boring guy on the video ever read the highway code etc about being a 'middle lane hogger' ? Boring video or what ? Got 4 1/2 minutes into 8 minute clip before even saw a military vehicle ! As for the statement in the press article about "massive traffic disruption " or whatever, where ? All going along very calmly.
CND = Crap Never Delivers" in my opinion............
Does this boring guy on the video ever read the highway code etc about being a 'middle lane hogger' ? Boring video or what ? Got 4 1/2 minutes into 8 minute clip before even saw a military vehicle ! As for the statement in the press article about "massive traffic disruption " or whatever, where ? All going along very calmly. CND = Crap Never Delivers" in my opinion............ Marco00
  • Score: 17

10:27pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target."

The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy.

Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.
In 1966 an American bomber dropped four nuclear devices on Palomares, Spain, as a result of a mid-air collision. Google it.

As far as I am aware, Spain is still there.

I am not having a go at you, Oxonian, merely trying to reassure you as to the safety of these devices. They will not go off unless a chain of commands is programmed into them.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target." The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy. Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.[/p][/quote]In 1966 an American bomber dropped four nuclear devices on Palomares, Spain, as a result of a mid-air collision. Google it. As far as I am aware, Spain is still there. I am not having a go at you, Oxonian, merely trying to reassure you as to the safety of these devices. They will not go off unless a chain of commands is programmed into them. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 9

12:41am Sun 13 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target."

The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy.

Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.
In 1966 an American bomber dropped four nuclear devices on Palomares, Spain, as a result of a mid-air collision. Google it.

As far as I am aware, Spain is still there.

I am not having a go at you, Oxonian, merely trying to reassure you as to the safety of these devices. They will not go off unless a chain of commands is programmed into them.
Apologies for a misprint. I said "The Cold War was brought about" when I meant "The Cold War was ended".

I know about the Palomares incident. It contaminated land areas where, 40 years later, there were still signs of increased radioactivity.

Quentin's touching faith in the safety of nuclear weapons suggests that he is ignoring the possibilities of nuclear leakage from such WMD as the UK's Trident submarines. Such events as Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl should be warning enough. The Wikipedia entry on "nuclear accidents" says "Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown and other mishaps include the K-19 (1961), K-11 (1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985)".

If those considerations don't move you, Quentin, how about the cost of the Trident missiles: more than £16 million each for 48 on the four submarines? That makes £768 million. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on medical research, kidney machines, or any cause that is designed to heal rather than kill?
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target." The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy. Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.[/p][/quote]In 1966 an American bomber dropped four nuclear devices on Palomares, Spain, as a result of a mid-air collision. Google it. As far as I am aware, Spain is still there. I am not having a go at you, Oxonian, merely trying to reassure you as to the safety of these devices. They will not go off unless a chain of commands is programmed into them.[/p][/quote]Apologies for a misprint. I said "The Cold War was brought about" when I meant "The Cold War was ended". I know about the Palomares incident. It contaminated land areas where, 40 years later, there were still signs of increased radioactivity. Quentin's touching faith in the safety of nuclear weapons suggests that he is ignoring the possibilities of nuclear leakage from such WMD as the UK's Trident submarines. Such events as Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl should be warning enough. The Wikipedia entry on "nuclear accidents" says "Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown and other mishaps include the K-19 (1961), K-11 (1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985)". If those considerations don't move you, Quentin, how about the cost of the Trident missiles: more than £16 million each for 48 on the four submarines? That makes £768 million. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on medical research, kidney machines, or any cause that is designed to heal rather than kill? Oxonian
  • Score: -5

3:29am Sun 13 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Oxonian; the fact that you've the ability to offer your view on what brought Soviet hegemony to an end may very well be a testimony to MAD. None of us knows. So long as neither version can ever be verified lets be grateful that we have the capacity to spend on medicine as well as defence and that solar power might well one day obviate the need for nuclear, since you switched your ground from weapons to power mid way through your argument.
Oxonian; the fact that you've the ability to offer your view on what brought Soviet hegemony to an end may very well be a testimony to MAD. None of us knows. So long as neither version can ever be verified lets be grateful that we have the capacity to spend on medicine as well as defence and that solar power might well one day obviate the need for nuclear, since you switched your ground from weapons to power mid way through your argument. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -5

5:04am Sun 13 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Oxonian wrote:
The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads.

It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them.

Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?
Has it not occurred to you the reason why we have had no people like Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito trying to take over the world since our Allies have had nuclear weapons , is precisely that. The only people taking over the world these days are McD'S, Coca-Cola, and Dunkin' Donuts.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: The three responses above are all childish and don't seem to recognise that we are being put in danger by nuclear weapons being transported along our roads. It is apparently evil for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons but it is supposedly fine for us for have them. Wouldn't the money wasted on such weapons be better spent on things like kidney machines or research into such diseases as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.?[/p][/quote]Has it not occurred to you the reason why we have had no people like Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito trying to take over the world since our Allies have had nuclear weapons , is precisely that. The only people taking over the world these days are McD'S, Coca-Cola, and Dunkin' Donuts. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 3

10:04am Sun 13 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

I wouldn't say that Mussolini or Hirohito wanted to "take over the world". But if you mean that there have been no dangerous dictators threatening peace in various regions, I would suggest that people like Osama bin Laden, Netanyahu, Mugabe, and the leaders of the Taliban and Boko Haram are all threatening stability of their regions or even the whole world - and they don't seem to have been deterred by our nuclear weapons.

Would 9/11 or 7/7 have occurred if the perpetrators had been deterred by our nuclear weapons?

Oh, and there's also someone called David Cameron who is in charge of some nuclear weapons which, if they are used, will cause countless deaths and, if they are not used, will have been a complete waste of money. Very civilised!
I wouldn't say that Mussolini or Hirohito wanted to "take over the world". But if you mean that there have been no dangerous dictators threatening peace in various regions, I would suggest that people like Osama bin Laden, Netanyahu, Mugabe, and the leaders of the Taliban and Boko Haram are all threatening stability of their regions or even the whole world - and they don't seem to have been deterred by our nuclear weapons. Would 9/11 or 7/7 have occurred if the perpetrators had been deterred by our nuclear weapons? Oh, and there's also someone called David Cameron who is in charge of some nuclear weapons which, if they are used, will cause countless deaths and, if they are not used, will have been a complete waste of money. Very civilised! Oxonian
  • Score: -1

10:30am Sun 13 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target."

The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy.

Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.
In 1966 an American bomber dropped four nuclear devices on Palomares, Spain, as a result of a mid-air collision. Google it.

As far as I am aware, Spain is still there.

I am not having a go at you, Oxonian, merely trying to reassure you as to the safety of these devices. They will not go off unless a chain of commands is programmed into them.
Apologies for a misprint. I said "The Cold War was brought about" when I meant "The Cold War was ended".

I know about the Palomares incident. It contaminated land areas where, 40 years later, there were still signs of increased radioactivity.

Quentin's touching faith in the safety of nuclear weapons suggests that he is ignoring the possibilities of nuclear leakage from such WMD as the UK's Trident submarines. Such events as Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl should be warning enough. The Wikipedia entry on "nuclear accidents" says "Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown and other mishaps include the K-19 (1961), K-11 (1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985)".

If those considerations don't move you, Quentin, how about the cost of the Trident missiles: more than £16 million each for 48 on the four submarines? That makes £768 million. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on medical research, kidney machines, or any cause that is designed to heal rather than kill?
The cost of £768 million is peanuts when compared to the £12billion we give away annually in Overrseas Aid.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: Quentin Walker says "My other point is that nuclear devices do save lives. They brought about the end of the Cold War, due to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that should an aggressor launch a nuclear strike against this country an immediate retaliatory attack would be launched from one of our submarines onto a predetermined target." The Cold War was brought about not by nuclear bombs but by enlightened Soviet leaders like Gorbachev whose policies of glasnost and perestroika led to a liberalisation which enabled the Soviet Union to release its shackles over other countries and create more friendly relations with the West. Mutually assured destruction was not the release of a nuclear attack from one of our submarines but a policy which stated that we would wipe out the Soviet Union (and they would wipe us out) if there was a disagreement that could not be solved - a very dangerous policy. Quentin also stated "Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach." There have been enough nuclear accidents for this to sound like naive complacency.[/p][/quote]In 1966 an American bomber dropped four nuclear devices on Palomares, Spain, as a result of a mid-air collision. Google it. As far as I am aware, Spain is still there. I am not having a go at you, Oxonian, merely trying to reassure you as to the safety of these devices. They will not go off unless a chain of commands is programmed into them.[/p][/quote]Apologies for a misprint. I said "The Cold War was brought about" when I meant "The Cold War was ended". I know about the Palomares incident. It contaminated land areas where, 40 years later, there were still signs of increased radioactivity. Quentin's touching faith in the safety of nuclear weapons suggests that he is ignoring the possibilities of nuclear leakage from such WMD as the UK's Trident submarines. Such events as Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl should be warning enough. The Wikipedia entry on "nuclear accidents" says "Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown and other mishaps include the K-19 (1961), K-11 (1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985)". If those considerations don't move you, Quentin, how about the cost of the Trident missiles: more than £16 million each for 48 on the four submarines? That makes £768 million. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on medical research, kidney machines, or any cause that is designed to heal rather than kill?[/p][/quote]The cost of £768 million is peanuts when compared to the £12billion we give away annually in Overrseas Aid. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 4

12:00pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Oxonian wrote:
I wouldn't say that Mussolini or Hirohito wanted to "take over the world". But if you mean that there have been no dangerous dictators threatening peace in various regions, I would suggest that people like Osama bin Laden, Netanyahu, Mugabe, and the leaders of the Taliban and Boko Haram are all threatening stability of their regions or even the whole world - and they don't seem to have been deterred by our nuclear weapons.

Would 9/11 or 7/7 have occurred if the perpetrators had been deterred by our nuclear weapons?

Oh, and there's also someone called David Cameron who is in charge of some nuclear weapons which, if they are used, will cause countless deaths and, if they are not used, will have been a complete waste of money. Very civilised!
Why does Mugabe, Osama Bin Liner Decd, Hamas, the Taliban threaten the stability of the world? I'm intrigued
Nuclear weapons didn't deter Sinn Fein/IRA either. Did anyone suggest they would?
Maybe they deterred the Red Army sweeping back into Berlin on the 30th anniversary of their first ingress. It seems very likely that the US's possession of them prevented Cuba from becoming a staging ground for Soviet hegemony in the Caribbean.I don't know, and nor do you, but I'm sure glad NATO had them then.
You're conflating 2 types of conflict to bolster an argument
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: I wouldn't say that Mussolini or Hirohito wanted to "take over the world". But if you mean that there have been no dangerous dictators threatening peace in various regions, I would suggest that people like Osama bin Laden, Netanyahu, Mugabe, and the leaders of the Taliban and Boko Haram are all threatening stability of their regions or even the whole world - and they don't seem to have been deterred by our nuclear weapons. Would 9/11 or 7/7 have occurred if the perpetrators had been deterred by our nuclear weapons? Oh, and there's also someone called David Cameron who is in charge of some nuclear weapons which, if they are used, will cause countless deaths and, if they are not used, will have been a complete waste of money. Very civilised![/p][/quote]Why does Mugabe, Osama Bin Liner Decd, Hamas, the Taliban threaten the stability of the world? I'm intrigued Nuclear weapons didn't deter Sinn Fein/IRA either. Did anyone suggest they would? Maybe they deterred the Red Army sweeping back into Berlin on the 30th anniversary of their first ingress. It seems very likely that the US's possession of them prevented Cuba from becoming a staging ground for Soviet hegemony in the Caribbean.I don't know, and nor do you, but I'm sure glad NATO had them then. You're conflating 2 types of conflict to bolster an argument Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 1

1:00pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
I wouldn't say that Mussolini or Hirohito wanted to "take over the world". But if you mean that there have been no dangerous dictators threatening peace in various regions, I would suggest that people like Osama bin Laden, Netanyahu, Mugabe, and the leaders of the Taliban and Boko Haram are all threatening stability of their regions or even the whole world - and they don't seem to have been deterred by our nuclear weapons.

Would 9/11 or 7/7 have occurred if the perpetrators had been deterred by our nuclear weapons?

Oh, and there's also someone called David Cameron who is in charge of some nuclear weapons which, if they are used, will cause countless deaths and, if they are not used, will have been a complete waste of money. Very civilised!
Why does Mugabe, Osama Bin Liner Decd, Hamas, the Taliban threaten the stability of the world? I'm intrigued
Nuclear weapons didn't deter Sinn Fein/IRA either. Did anyone suggest they would?
Maybe they deterred the Red Army sweeping back into Berlin on the 30th anniversary of their first ingress. It seems very likely that the US's possession of them prevented Cuba from becoming a staging ground for Soviet hegemony in the Caribbean.I don't know, and nor do you, but I'm sure glad NATO had them then.
You're conflating 2 types of conflict to bolster an argument
Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaeda, an organisation which wants global jihad. At least, that's what the entry for Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia says. It also calls Al-Qaeda "a global militant Islamist…organisat
ion". I think that means that it threatens global stability.

Al-Qaeda has had close ties with the Taliban. The Taliban has had a serious impact not only in Afghanistan (where NATO forces - including UK forces - have been fighting them) but also in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gaza and India.

If you don't know whether nuclear weapons were a deterrent or not, why are you "sure glad NATO had them"?


Quentin,
You say "The cost of £768 million is peanuts when compared to the £12billion we give away annually in Overrseas Aid". But £768 million is only the cost of the missiles: the cost of the whole Trident system is much more than that. And I'm one of those mad people who think it's a good idea to give aid to countries which are less fortunate than ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: I wouldn't say that Mussolini or Hirohito wanted to "take over the world". But if you mean that there have been no dangerous dictators threatening peace in various regions, I would suggest that people like Osama bin Laden, Netanyahu, Mugabe, and the leaders of the Taliban and Boko Haram are all threatening stability of their regions or even the whole world - and they don't seem to have been deterred by our nuclear weapons. Would 9/11 or 7/7 have occurred if the perpetrators had been deterred by our nuclear weapons? Oh, and there's also someone called David Cameron who is in charge of some nuclear weapons which, if they are used, will cause countless deaths and, if they are not used, will have been a complete waste of money. Very civilised![/p][/quote]Why does Mugabe, Osama Bin Liner Decd, Hamas, the Taliban threaten the stability of the world? I'm intrigued Nuclear weapons didn't deter Sinn Fein/IRA either. Did anyone suggest they would? Maybe they deterred the Red Army sweeping back into Berlin on the 30th anniversary of their first ingress. It seems very likely that the US's possession of them prevented Cuba from becoming a staging ground for Soviet hegemony in the Caribbean.I don't know, and nor do you, but I'm sure glad NATO had them then. You're conflating 2 types of conflict to bolster an argument[/p][/quote]Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaeda, an organisation which wants global jihad. At least, that's what the entry for Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia says. It also calls Al-Qaeda "a global militant Islamist…organisat ion". I think that means that it threatens global stability. Al-Qaeda has had close ties with the Taliban. The Taliban has had a serious impact not only in Afghanistan (where NATO forces - including UK forces - have been fighting them) but also in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gaza and India. If you don't know whether nuclear weapons were a deterrent or not, why are you "sure glad NATO had them"? Quentin, You say "The cost of £768 million is peanuts when compared to the £12billion we give away annually in Overrseas Aid". But £768 million is only the cost of the missiles: the cost of the whole Trident system is much more than that. And I'm one of those mad people who think it's a good idea to give aid to countries which are less fortunate than ourselves. Oxonian
  • Score: -5

2:05pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaeda, an organisation which wants global jihad. At least, that's what the entry for Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia says. It also calls Al-Qaeda "a global militant Islamist…organisat
ion." I think that means that it threatens global stability.

Al-Qaeda has had close ties with the Taliban. The Taliban has had a serious impact not only in Afghanistan (where NATO forces - including UK forces - have been fighting them) but also in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gaza and India.

As things appear to be, the Mohammedan "jihad" has all the outward and visible signs of quot homines tot sententiae. It is neither homogeneous, organised in any sense discernible nor does it present a threat against which a nuclear weapon would make any sense. If necessary it can be countered by conventional force and in the meantime makes the lives of millions a total misery. Powers which are homogeneous and organised include China and Russia. It would be nice to think we didn't need a nuclear deterrent to talk to them but-well put it this way. Would Tibet still be Tibet if it had had nuclear? You bet!

If you don't know whether nuclear weapons were a deterrent or not, why are you "sure glad NATO had them"?
For pretty much the same reason that you insure your house if you're a home owner. I've got no particular reason to expect a conflagration or visit from "the other side" at 2 am but I'd be a durned fool to exclude all possibility of such a thing.
"And I'm one of those mad people who think it's a good idea to give aid to countries which are less fortunate than ourselves" Are you talking humanitarian aid in time of crisis or Oxfam swanning round Nairobi in Shoguns and advertising in the Nairobi Times for a pool cleaner? The former is tiny; the latter massive-a growth industry in fact.
Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al-Qaeda, an organisation which wants global jihad. At least, that's what the entry for Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia says. It also calls Al-Qaeda "a global militant Islamist…organisat ion." I think that means that it threatens global stability. Al-Qaeda has had close ties with the Taliban. The Taliban has had a serious impact not only in Afghanistan (where NATO forces - including UK forces - have been fighting them) but also in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gaza and India. As things appear to be, the Mohammedan "jihad" has all the outward and visible signs of quot homines tot sententiae. It is neither homogeneous, organised in any sense discernible nor does it present a threat against which a nuclear weapon would make any sense. If necessary it can be countered by conventional force and in the meantime makes the lives of millions a total misery. Powers which are homogeneous and organised include China and Russia. It would be nice to think we didn't need a nuclear deterrent to talk to them but-well put it this way. Would Tibet still be Tibet if it had had nuclear? You bet! If you don't know whether nuclear weapons were a deterrent or not, why are you "sure glad NATO had them"? For pretty much the same reason that you insure your house if you're a home owner. I've got no particular reason to expect a conflagration or visit from "the other side" at 2 am but I'd be a durned fool to exclude all possibility of such a thing. "And I'm one of those mad people who think it's a good idea to give aid to countries which are less fortunate than ourselves" Are you talking humanitarian aid in time of crisis or Oxfam swanning round Nairobi in Shoguns and advertising in the Nairobi Times for a pool cleaner? The former is tiny; the latter massive-a growth industry in fact. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -1

3:14pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

My final word on the subject.:

Oxonian, have you heard of insurance? You pay premiums annually but never get anything for it except peace of mind.

If a disaster does occur, then you reap a benefit.
My final word on the subject.: Oxonian, have you heard of insurance? You pay premiums annually but never get anything for it except peace of mind. If a disaster does occur, then you reap a benefit. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 9

5:25pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
My final word on the subject.:

Oxonian, have you heard of insurance? You pay premiums annually but never get anything for it except peace of mind.

If a disaster does occur, then you reap a benefit.
So, if there is a nuclear war that wipes out most of us and whoever our enemies are at the time, who pays out on the insurance?

Quentin sounds fairly fed up with this discussion, and so am I. So I'll just try to sum up the debate as best I can (complete with tongue in cheek):

1. Nuclear weapons are absolutely safe. Quentin says so, therefore it must be true (even though he didn't know exactly what "mutually assured destruction" meant, and although there have been numerous accidents where radioactive materials have been released).
2. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not organised, so they are no danger to anyone. If they happened to be any danger, we could deal with them using conventional weapons, as we have done so successfully with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
3. Overseas aid is a complete waste of money, as aid workers only spend their time driving around in large vehicles. Money is much better spent on weapons of mass destruction.
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: My final word on the subject.: Oxonian, have you heard of insurance? You pay premiums annually but never get anything for it except peace of mind. If a disaster does occur, then you reap a benefit.[/p][/quote]So, if there is a nuclear war that wipes out most of us and whoever our enemies are at the time, who pays out on the insurance? Quentin sounds fairly fed up with this discussion, and so am I. So I'll just try to sum up the debate as best I can (complete with tongue in cheek): 1. Nuclear weapons are absolutely safe. Quentin says so, therefore it must be true (even though he didn't know exactly what "mutually assured destruction" meant, and although there have been numerous accidents where radioactive materials have been released). 2. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not organised, so they are no danger to anyone. If they happened to be any danger, we could deal with them using conventional weapons, as we have done so successfully with the Taliban in Afghanistan. 3. Overseas aid is a complete waste of money, as aid workers only spend their time driving around in large vehicles. Money is much better spent on weapons of mass destruction. Oxonian
  • Score: -10

7:58pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Councillor mark cherry says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
Councillor Mark David Cherry wrote:
My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
Complacency is a terrorist can always adapt.Any terrorist can now view on YouTube and see how our Nuclear deterrent (trident) is moved On the M40 in day light. not as I thought by night by train. I'm no security expert but it does not matter how much military support you have on that motorway.It would only take one terrorist on a motorway bridge with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade ) result disaster. personally I think the matter should be investigated by the government.
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Councillor Mark David Cherry[/bold] wrote: My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.[/p][/quote]Complacency is a terrorist can always adapt.Any terrorist can now view on YouTube and see how our Nuclear deterrent (trident) is moved On the M40 in day light. not as I thought by night by train. I'm no security expert but it does not matter how much military support you have on that motorway.It would only take one terrorist on a motorway bridge with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade ) result disaster. personally I think the matter should be investigated by the government. Councillor mark cherry
  • Score: -9

9:46pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Has anybody actually considered the idea that the convoy was a decoy, carrying absolutely nothing?
Has anybody actually considered the idea that the convoy was a decoy, carrying absolutely nothing? Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 8

9:56pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Councillor mark cherry wrote:
Quentin Walker wrote:
Councillor Mark David Cherry wrote:
My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
Complacency is a terrorist can always adapt.Any terrorist can now view on YouTube and see how our Nuclear deterrent (trident) is moved On the M40 in day light. not as I thought by night by train. I'm no security expert but it does not matter how much military support you have on that motorway.It would only take one terrorist on a motorway bridge with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade ) result disaster. personally I think the matter should be investigated by the government.
Oh how I love action films, they portray things being blown to smithereens by RPGs, vehicles being thrown into the air and upturned........in reality, if you fired an RPG at a Landrover, the damage would be minimal, and it certainly wouldn't be thrown into the air, fire one at a nuclear warhead transport container, and it would merely ricochet off.
Some people really need to do their research.
[quote][p][bold]Councillor mark cherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Councillor Mark David Cherry[/bold] wrote: My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.[/p][/quote]Complacency is a terrorist can always adapt.Any terrorist can now view on YouTube and see how our Nuclear deterrent (trident) is moved On the M40 in day light. not as I thought by night by train. I'm no security expert but it does not matter how much military support you have on that motorway.It would only take one terrorist on a motorway bridge with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade ) result disaster. personally I think the matter should be investigated by the government.[/p][/quote]Oh how I love action films, they portray things being blown to smithereens by RPGs, vehicles being thrown into the air and upturned........in reality, if you fired an RPG at a Landrover, the damage would be minimal, and it certainly wouldn't be thrown into the air, fire one at a nuclear warhead transport container, and it would merely ricochet off. Some people really need to do their research. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 4

12:28am Mon 14 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

2. "Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not organised, so they are no danger to anyone. If they happened to be any danger, we could deal with them using conventional weapons, as we have done so successfully with the Taliban in Afghanistan." No. They are as likely to cut each others' throats as ours. Nuclear weapons aren't relevant in their context. We won't make any difference, and in this I agree with you, on their territory because they love chaos, as they say, but I'm sanguine about their ability to make us as barmy as they are, rushing round killing all & sundry for no particular reason.
3. "Overseas aid is a complete waste of money, as aid workers only spend their time driving around in large vehicles. Money is much better spent on weapons of mass destruction" Spend what's needed on humanitarian aid. We are brilliant at that and the British as generous as any. Stop the Aid Gravy Train. It's financed by debt that will bear heavily on your grandchildren and does absolutely no good to anyone save the aid quangocrats.
2. "Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not organised, so they are no danger to anyone. If they happened to be any danger, we could deal with them using conventional weapons, as we have done so successfully with the Taliban in Afghanistan." No. They are as likely to cut each others' throats as ours. Nuclear weapons aren't relevant in their context. We won't make any difference, and in this I agree with you, on their territory because they love chaos, as they say, but I'm sanguine about their ability to make us as barmy as they are, rushing round killing all & sundry for no particular reason. 3. "Overseas aid is a complete waste of money, as aid workers only spend their time driving around in large vehicles. Money is much better spent on weapons of mass destruction" Spend what's needed on humanitarian aid. We are brilliant at that and the British as generous as any. Stop the Aid Gravy Train. It's financed by debt that will bear heavily on your grandchildren and does absolutely no good to anyone save the aid quangocrats. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:49am Mon 14 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Councillor mark cherry wrote:
Quentin Walker wrote:
Councillor Mark David Cherry wrote:
My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.
You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.
Complacency is a terrorist can always adapt.Any terrorist can now view on YouTube and see how our Nuclear deterrent (trident) is moved On the M40 in day light. not as I thought by night by train. I'm no security expert but it does not matter how much military support you have on that motorway.It would only take one terrorist on a motorway bridge with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade ) result disaster. personally I think the matter should be investigated by the government.
Mark: "... I'm no security expert..."

I am. Happy now?
[quote][p][bold]Councillor mark cherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Councillor Mark David Cherry[/bold] wrote: My major concern is this matter of a convoy to carry trident nuclear missile system is now on YouTube for ever terrorist in the world to see how the United Kingdomsecurity works.Common sense would ask surly moving of nuclear missiles should be a D NOTICE situation.I have no problem with CND. but our county security must come first.[/p][/quote]You didn't see the whole picture. Rest assured, the security of these convoys is beyond reproach.[/p][/quote]Complacency is a terrorist can always adapt.Any terrorist can now view on YouTube and see how our Nuclear deterrent (trident) is moved On the M40 in day light. not as I thought by night by train. I'm no security expert but it does not matter how much military support you have on that motorway.It would only take one terrorist on a motorway bridge with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade ) result disaster. personally I think the matter should be investigated by the government.[/p][/quote]Mark: "... I'm no security expert..." I am. Happy now? Quentin Walker
  • Score: -1

3:50pm Mon 14 Jul 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

isnt it against the law to film / hold a mobile phone and use it while driving?? someone should arrest those CND tree huggers
isnt it against the law to film / hold a mobile phone and use it while driving?? someone should arrest those CND tree huggers yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -4

10:58pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Chris from Kidlington says...

I'm really shocked that these weapons are being driven along busy roads. Someone above mentioned petrol tankers and imagine if something like that was in collision with a vehicle carrying highly radioactive material - you would not only have the M40 closed, you would also have a large chunk of Oxfordshire closed for very lengthy decontamination.
I'm also a bit shocked by the 'so what' attitude shown in some comments - perhaps the UK really does need more money spent on education? I've heard that the cost of Britain renewing its Trident weapons is £3bn per annum - surely better to spend this in UK schools or on health.
I'm really shocked that these weapons are being driven along busy roads. Someone above mentioned petrol tankers and imagine if something like that was in collision with a vehicle carrying highly radioactive material - you would not only have the M40 closed, you would also have a large chunk of Oxfordshire closed for very lengthy decontamination. I'm also a bit shocked by the 'so what' attitude shown in some comments - perhaps the UK really does need more money spent on education? I've heard that the cost of Britain renewing its Trident weapons is £3bn per annum - surely better to spend this in UK schools or on health. Chris from Kidlington
  • Score: -5

7:17am Tue 15 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Chris from Kidlington wrote:
I'm really shocked that these weapons are being driven along busy roads. Someone above mentioned petrol tankers and imagine if something like that was in collision with a vehicle carrying highly radioactive material - you would not only have the M40 closed, you would also have a large chunk of Oxfordshire closed for very lengthy decontamination.
I'm also a bit shocked by the 'so what' attitude shown in some comments - perhaps the UK really does need more money spent on education? I've heard that the cost of Britain renewing its Trident weapons is £3bn per annum - surely better to spend this in UK schools or on health.
"Someone above mentioned petrol tankers and imagine if something like that was in collision with a vehicle carrying highly radioactive material - you would not only have the M40 closed, you would also have a large chunk of Oxfordshire closed for very lengthy decontamination."...
....
........The M40 would be closed temporarily, for clean up, and resurfacing, if the tarmac had been melted, and that would be it.
There would be no requirement for decontamination, because there would be no radio active material leakage.
Some people appear to under the misconception that the vehicles that carry nuclear material are like conventional vehicles, they're not.......the metal used to make the containers will be at least a few inches thick, and will no doubt have a second skin too.
If a petrol tanker was in collision with one, there might be a fire, but the likelihood of an explosion is minimal, it would all depend on the conditions at the time......wind speed, what quality of fuel was still in the tanker, how many compartments the tanker had.....etc.
Ignore what you see in films......it's the fumes from petrol that ignite, the liquid is far less hazardous, a compartment would have to be ruptured for there to be any chance of a fire or explosion.
It would of course be a different story if a container of nuclear material was hit by a train.....they'd possibly have to close the road, and the train like to clear the debris, but there would still be no spillage....
[quote][p][bold]Chris from Kidlington[/bold] wrote: I'm really shocked that these weapons are being driven along busy roads. Someone above mentioned petrol tankers and imagine if something like that was in collision with a vehicle carrying highly radioactive material - you would not only have the M40 closed, you would also have a large chunk of Oxfordshire closed for very lengthy decontamination. I'm also a bit shocked by the 'so what' attitude shown in some comments - perhaps the UK really does need more money spent on education? I've heard that the cost of Britain renewing its Trident weapons is £3bn per annum - surely better to spend this in UK schools or on health.[/p][/quote]"Someone above mentioned petrol tankers and imagine if something like that was in collision with a vehicle carrying highly radioactive material - you would not only have the M40 closed, you would also have a large chunk of Oxfordshire closed for very lengthy decontamination."... .... ........The M40 would be closed temporarily, for clean up, and resurfacing, if the tarmac had been melted, and that would be it. There would be no requirement for decontamination, because there would be no radio active material leakage. Some people appear to under the misconception that the vehicles that carry nuclear material are like conventional vehicles, they're not.......the metal used to make the containers will be at least a few inches thick, and will no doubt have a second skin too. If a petrol tanker was in collision with one, there might be a fire, but the likelihood of an explosion is minimal, it would all depend on the conditions at the time......wind speed, what quality of fuel was still in the tanker, how many compartments the tanker had.....etc. Ignore what you see in films......it's the fumes from petrol that ignite, the liquid is far less hazardous, a compartment would have to be ruptured for there to be any chance of a fire or explosion. It would of course be a different story if a container of nuclear material was hit by a train.....they'd possibly have to close the road, and the train like to clear the debris, but there would still be no spillage.... Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

8:56am Tue 15 Jul 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

Back in 1984 they collided a full length train at 70mph with one of these Nuclear flasks at a public showing.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s
7M

The inner flask was unharmed
Back in 1984 they collided a full length train at 70mph with one of these Nuclear flasks at a public showing. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s 7M The inner flask was unharmed yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -1

8:59am Tue 15 Jul 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

Pictures of the intact flask after a crash at 90mph with a train here http://www.old-dalby
.com/Crash.htm
Pictures of the intact flask after a crash at 90mph with a train here http://www.old-dalby .com/Crash.htm yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -1

11:26am Tue 15 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?
So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they? Oxonian
  • Score: 2

12:17pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Oxonian wrote:
So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?
If you believe that the Soviet Union gave a monkey's about safety, then you should try to read a little more critically.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?[/p][/quote]If you believe that the Soviet Union gave a monkey's about safety, then you should try to read a little more critically. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -2

12:31pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?
If you believe that the Soviet Union gave a monkey's about safety, then you should try to read a little more critically.
You think that the Soviet Union didn't care about safety but the UK and its allies did? So what happened at Windscale in 1957? Or Three Mile Island in 1979?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?[/p][/quote]If you believe that the Soviet Union gave a monkey's about safety, then you should try to read a little more critically.[/p][/quote]You think that the Soviet Union didn't care about safety but the UK and its allies did? So what happened at Windscale in 1957? Or Three Mile Island in 1979? Oxonian
  • Score: 4

12:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

I know that the USSR didn't care about safety but I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material. I hasten to say this before you add Fukushima.
I know that the USSR didn't care about safety but I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material. I hasten to say this before you add Fukushima. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -2

9:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Oxonian wrote:
So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?
Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: So the three comments above suggest that nuclear material is absolutely safe. Just as they said it was at Chernobyl? They would say that, wouldn't they?[/p][/quote]Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material".

I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy.

Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?
Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material". I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy. Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure? Oxonian
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Oxonian wrote:
Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material".

I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy.

Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?
Can you post any links to recent accidents during the transport of nuclear materials in the past 40 years?
When nuclear materials are being used in a reactor, there's a chemical process involved, also intense heat etc., this is why there have been accidents, and leaks. When nuclear materials are being transported, there's no other chemicals involved, if warheads are being transported, there'll be no detonators within quite a few miles, so even though they contain nuclear materials, they're effectively paperweights.
It's not rocket science.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material". I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy. Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?[/p][/quote]Can you post any links to recent accidents during the transport of nuclear materials in the past 40 years? When nuclear materials are being used in a reactor, there's a chemical process involved, also intense heat etc., this is why there have been accidents, and leaks. When nuclear materials are being transported, there's no other chemicals involved, if warheads are being transported, there'll be no detonators within quite a few miles, so even though they contain nuclear materials, they're effectively paperweights. It's not rocket science. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

12:05am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material".

I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy.

Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?
Can you post any links to recent accidents during the transport of nuclear materials in the past 40 years?
When nuclear materials are being used in a reactor, there's a chemical process involved, also intense heat etc., this is why there have been accidents, and leaks. When nuclear materials are being transported, there's no other chemicals involved, if warheads are being transported, there'll be no detonators within quite a few miles, so even though they contain nuclear materials, they're effectively paperweights.
It's not rocket science.
"The number of accidents transporting radioactive materials has risen sharply, prompting fears for public safety".

http://www.robedward
s.com/2012/09/sharp-
rise-in-nuclear-tran
sport-accidents.html
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material". I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy. Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?[/p][/quote]Can you post any links to recent accidents during the transport of nuclear materials in the past 40 years? When nuclear materials are being used in a reactor, there's a chemical process involved, also intense heat etc., this is why there have been accidents, and leaks. When nuclear materials are being transported, there's no other chemicals involved, if warheads are being transported, there'll be no detonators within quite a few miles, so even though they contain nuclear materials, they're effectively paperweights. It's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]"The number of accidents transporting radioactive materials has risen sharply, prompting fears for public safety". http://www.robedward s.com/2012/09/sharp- rise-in-nuclear-tran sport-accidents.html Oxonian
  • Score: -1

12:24am Thu 17 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Oxonian wrote:
Dilligaf2010 wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material".

I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy.

Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?
Can you post any links to recent accidents during the transport of nuclear materials in the past 40 years?
When nuclear materials are being used in a reactor, there's a chemical process involved, also intense heat etc., this is why there have been accidents, and leaks. When nuclear materials are being transported, there's no other chemicals involved, if warheads are being transported, there'll be no detonators within quite a few miles, so even though they contain nuclear materials, they're effectively paperweights.
It's not rocket science.
"The number of accidents transporting radioactive materials has risen sharply, prompting fears for public safety".

http://www.robedward

s.com/2012/09/sharp-

rise-in-nuclear-tran

sport-accidents.html
They're hardly what you'd catastrophic, no widespread fallout, no deaths or injuries, one incident of exposure, non-life threatening........n
ot worth writing home about any of them.......I'd be more concerned about half a dozen full acetylene cylinders left on their side in the sunshine all day
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: Lord Palmerstone says... "I' m struggling to understand why you think incidents involving reactors have any bearing on the transport of weapons grade material". I assume that weapons -grade material is radioactive, just like the material in reactors. If a leakage or the like can create problems with a reactor, it could also cause problems with a nuclear convoy. Dilligaf2010 seems to side with Lord Palmerstone when he says: "Nobody has said nuclear material is safe, but the transporting of it is". Again I ask: how can you be so sure?[/p][/quote]Can you post any links to recent accidents during the transport of nuclear materials in the past 40 years? When nuclear materials are being used in a reactor, there's a chemical process involved, also intense heat etc., this is why there have been accidents, and leaks. When nuclear materials are being transported, there's no other chemicals involved, if warheads are being transported, there'll be no detonators within quite a few miles, so even though they contain nuclear materials, they're effectively paperweights. It's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]"The number of accidents transporting radioactive materials has risen sharply, prompting fears for public safety". http://www.robedward s.com/2012/09/sharp- rise-in-nuclear-tran sport-accidents.html[/p][/quote]They're hardly what you'd catastrophic, no widespread fallout, no deaths or injuries, one incident of exposure, non-life threatening........n ot worth writing home about any of them.......I'd be more concerned about half a dozen full acetylene cylinders left on their side in the sunshine all day Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 4
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree